CC wrote:I'm not arguing that as a reason as to why Michigan is better, I'm just wondering why USC's less impressive win over ND (than Michigan's) moved USC up to #2 and Michigan down to #3.
I could see it if Michigan beat ND by 3 and then USC destroyed ND, but voters were thinking Michigan was #2 prior to the game and then USC jumps them by beating what has been established as a hugely overrated ND team.
Listen, the very fact that Michigan lost their game but retained their #2 ranking is the biggest issue here. In the last 20-30 years, when a #2 team loses even if it's to the #1 team, how many times has that #2 team retained its #2 ranking? My knowledge is hardly all-encompassing, but I cannot recall that happening before.
I have no qualms about saying Michigan is one of the best teams in the country. I have no qualms with the supposition that they are the #2 team in the country. But with the history of #1 vs #2 such as it is, there's no way I'm interested in hearing Michigan fans claim unfair treatment, bias or whatever. Michigan got one of the biggest benefits of the doubt I've ever seen.
Bottom line is they had their shot. They didn't win, so it's time to tip your cap to the Buckeyes and get ready to kick some Ace in the bowl game and earn that #2 ranking.
Think about it this way, Wolverine fans. USC is no slouch. They're not as good as recent years, but they can play football. If they knock off Ohio State and Michigan wins their game convincingly, Michigan can still finish ahead of the hated OSU Buckeyes.